ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ispcp] review materials for our comment on the WHOIS review-team recommendations

  • To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ispcp] review materials for our comment on the WHOIS review-team recommendations
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:00:06 -0500
  • Cc: Emily Taylor <emily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CAKWYFsdTVwqC0oWCV9APTazN4rybkdkQuNrGF9-gLosJqSg5WA@mail.gmail.com>
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hi all,

as i was starting to think about comments on the WHOIS Review Team, i realized that it would be really helpful to have a redline version that compared the reports before and after the first round of comments.  i bugged Emily Taylor ((the Chair of the review team) and she made that happen (thanks Emily!!).  a link to the redline is here:

	http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-redline-11may12-en.pdf

here are links to the public comment box 

	http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-en.htm 

and announcement 

	http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm

Emily also shared some pointers with me as to what to pay attention to (thanks for these too, Emily):

Focus on:

- The executive summary.  If you read that, you've pretty much got the lot. The first part is mostly unchanged, until we start to get to the Findings and Recommendations. The format of the findings and recommendations has been reworked, so that each recommendation is introduced by the relevant findings.  The text of the findings is mostly new minted, but takes the same approach as the previous draft.  The recommendations are mostly the same idea, with bits of clarification when it was clear that we'd confused people (!).

- The substantively changed recommendations are:

1. strategic priority is fuller, and is now split out from compliance, which also has a fuller, standalone set of recommendations.  

2. Privacy/proxy are now handled together, and we're no longer suggesting voluntary best practices for proxies.  Instead we're asking for an accreditation process to be developed (it will need a PDP to be sure).  

3. The look-up - the old recommendation 17 which had two alternatives - has been changed. I hope, simplified.  We're now proposing operational amendments to Internic, which should be possible without policy development.  In a nutshell, it's "make this less horrible for users".

- Chapter 4 (Compliance) is completely rewritten

- Appendix B (which is completely new) is my correspondence with staff about compliance staff numbers, spend etc...

maybe we can take this up on our call this Wednesday.

mikey

- - - - - - - - -
phone 	651-647-6109  
fax  		866-280-2356  
web 	http://www.haven2.com
handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>